Re: [Liberty-eiffel] Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 26, Issue 3 - here: reasoning for using Pelles-C on Windows

[Raphael Mack]

Hi,

I also agree. I personally never checked the license of PellesC and from
this dicussion it is clear that it's better to choose MingW as the
compiler integrated in a LibertyEiffel package for seemingless
installation.

On the other side I am also pragmatic and think it is even more
important to have something working than to be political correct. (I
don't say the latter is not important.) The one who does counts more
than those just discussing. Again: the latter group is also important
and I am glad to see this discussion going on. - The one who cares and
discusses is more important for the project than the billions of people
ignoring LibertyEiffel. They all are equally important for mankind and
now I stop (with the hope you got my point) because I am already
off-topic.

And also a patch to make LibertyEiffel C output compatible with
Microsoft VisualC compiler is welcome, so why not for PellesC? But yes,
there is a difference between supporting a compiler and propagating its
use by inclusion.

BTW: I adjusted the GSoC idea and replaced PellesC by MingW but I kept
the "e. g.". - In the hope this is political acceptable for all :-)

Full of hope,
Rapha

Am Dienstag, den 08.03.2016, 09:08 +0100 schrieb Cyril ADRIAN:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I agree with Bernd. Don't forget LibertyEiffel is the GNU Eiffel
> Compiler—we have actual FSF endorsement. I think we should use only
> GPL compilers. It is a matter of coherence.
> 
> I don't know PellesC, but indeed LLVM is not a good match for GNU
> software.
> 
> 
> Please use gcc. Hence, MinGW on Windows.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Cyril
> 
> 
> 2016-03-08 8:37 GMT+01:00 Bernd Schoeller <address@hidden>:
>         On 07/03/16 11:53, Hans Zwakenberg | Ocean Consulting GmbH
>         wrote:
>                 Hi Rahpa, Bernd et al,
>                 Pelles-C is free, free as in 'free speech' AND as in
>                 'free beer'... ;)
>         
>         No, it is free as 'free beer', but not as in 'free speech' -
>         if it would be, you would have the source, and you would be
>         allowed to change the source, and you would be allowed to
>         distribute your changes.
>         
>         Also, you are not allowed to charge money for it. So, it will
>         never be possible to distribute it on Magazine DVDs or
>         similar. That is quite a heavy restriction if you think about
>         it. All real open source code can be distributed for a fee.
>         
>         http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
>         
>                 As to compiler integration:  other compilers are
>                 available:  CLANG/LLVM,
>                 Code::Blocks and the ones previously mentioned.  Also,
>                 in the past we
>                 discussed integrating Tiny-C as well, more
>                 specifically to get faster
>                 edit-compile-test turnarounds.  The idea was to use
>                 Tiny-C for
>                 development and any of the others (to be implemented)
>                 for deployment...
>                 Using MinGW/MSYS would keep it closer to the Linux
>                 counterpart and hence
>                 reduce integration effort, but I don't know enough
>                 about it
>                 (license-wise, deployment-wise) to be able to
>                 choose/decide between them...
>         
>         Having looked a second time, I really would recommend to start
>         by using MinGW. While there has not been an official release
>         for 3 years, it seems to be reasonably well maintained. And,
>         as it is the compiler that Liberty Eiffel normally uses, you
>         will run into much less problems.
>         
>         That is only my 5cc - your choice.
>         
>         Bernd
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cyril ADRIAN
>